Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/23/2012 - REDEVELOPMENT DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION STRATEGIES
DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Ken Waido Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City policies contained in City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014, list manufactured housing/mobile homes as an important component of the community’s housing stock, encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing units, and call for the mitigation of impacts on residents displaced through the closure of mobile home parks due to redevelopment activities. The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on its 2012 Work Plan. The purpose of the strategic plan would be to develop City policies and requirements applicable to redevelopment projects by defining the City’s role, responsibilities, obligations, and involvement in redevelopment projects which cause the displacement of low-income people from their homes (with an emphasis on mobile home parks), whether they are located inside the City limits or within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), within the restrictions of the City Charter. The strategic plan under development will deal with more than just the relocation of low-income residents displaced by redevelopment. The expanded scope of the project will investigate optional techniques to preserve and stabilize some mobile home parks to reduce economic pressures to convert the parks to other uses. In cases where a mobile home park is subjected to redevelopment and the displacement of park residents, the project will develop relocation assistance requirements to be covered by the park/property-owner and/or developer of the redevelopment activity. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED As indicated above, this project is looking at mobile home park preservation techniques and relocation assistance requirements to mitigate the impact on residents displaced and forced to relocate due to a redevelopment project. Staff is seeking feedback from the Council as to the level of comfort the Council may have with some of the preservation techniques and relocation assistance requirements researched by staff and the consulting team to this point in the planning process. If acceptable to the Council, the techniques and requirements will be further refined and subjected to additional stakeholder and public reviews. If some techniques and requirements are unacceptable to the Council, they will be dropped from further consideration. Staff would like to receive Council’s comments regarding the following questions: 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the following preservation and stabilization options for mobile home parks? a. Mobile Home Park Zoning District October 23, 2012 Page 2 b. Park Resident Ownership - Right of First Refusal or Right to Match Last Offer for Sale of Mobile Home Park c. Infrastructure/Maintenance/Replacement 2. What feedback does Council have regarding the following options for notice to affected residents? a. Notice of Closure b. Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closures”) 3. What feedback does Council have regarding the following general relocation assistance requirement options? a. Relocation Report b. Payment of Relocation Costs c. Rental Assistance 4. Does the Council have any additional questions or comments at this time? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Mobile home parks are an important source of low-cost, affordable housing for lower income households, seniors, and people with disabilities. Mobile home owners are a unique population because they are considered homeowners, but they are also considered tenants because they do not own the land on which their homes are located. The City of Fort Collins has seen the closure of several mobile home parks for a variety of reasons that displaced park residents and caused their relocation. Attachment 1 provides a table listing these park closures and the reasons for the closures. In all of the closure cases, City staff provided support and collaborated with other agencies, such as the Fort Collins Housing Authority, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Neighbor-to Neighbor, the Colorado Division of Housing, The Murphy Center, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to relocate, or find other types of suitable replacement housing, for displaced park residents. However, while there were some similarities, the City’s involvement was different, more of an ad hoc approach, done on a case-by-case basis, for each of the park closures. Attachment 1 also contains additional information as to how the City assisted with the relocation of displaced residents from the Bender Mobile Home Park, which closed in April of this year. One of the “near-term actions” in the City Plan Action Plan was to “Develop a proactive plan to address the issue of resident displacement due to redevelopment activities.” The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on its 2012 Work Plan. The purpose of the strategic plan is to develop City policies and requirements applicable to redevelopment projects by defining the City’s role, responsibilities, obligations, and involvement in redevelopment projects which cause the displacement of low-income people from their homes (with an emphasis on mobile home parks), whether they are located inside the City limits or within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), within the restrictions of the City Charter. The strategic plan will provide a procedures manual for City actions the next time redevelopment causes displacement and the need to relocate low-income residents, as well as strategies to preserve existing mobile home parks. Attachment 2 presents the relevant City policies from City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014 for this strategic plan. October 23, 2012 Page 3 Mobile Home Park Inventory Attachment 3 depicts a map showing the mobile home parks that are located north of Drake Road. Attachment 4 depicts a map showing the mobile home parks that are located south of Drake Road. There are approximately 1,230 manufactured housing/mobile homes located in nine mobile home parks inside the City limits. The parks range in size from 5 units to 451 units. These parks were established between the years 1957 and 1984. Approximately 73% of the mobile homes within mobile home parks inside the City limits are owner-occupied and 27% are rental. Of the 1,230 units located inside the City limits, 361 units (29%) are in parks with local (Fort Collins, Loveland, LaPorte) park ownership, 255 units (21%) are in parks whose owners who are located in Colorado, and 614 units (50%) are in parks whose owners who are located out of state. Based on data from the City’s Building Department, no new mobile homes have been brought into the city since 2005. Between 2002 and 2005, 29 new mobile homes were located in the city, most likely in the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park, which has since closed. Since 2002, over 330 mobile homes relocated from their previous lot to another lot in the same park or different mobile home park inside the City limits. There are also approximately 1,041 manufactured housing/mobile homes located within six mobile home parks on parcels that are outside of and contiguous to the City limits. If redevelopment plans were to be submitted to Larimer County for these parcels, they would be required to annex into the City under the provisions of the Fort Collins-Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The parks range in size from 5 units to 332 units. These parks were established between the years 1968 and 1972. Approximately 81% of the mobile homes are owner-occupied and 19% are rental. Of the 1,041 units, 42 units (4%) are in parks with local ownership, 332 units (32%) are in parks whose owners are located in Colorado, and 667 units (64%) are in parks whose owners are located out of state. Finally, there are approximately 510 manufactured housing/mobile homes located within ten mobile home parks in the GMA on parcels that are not within nor contiguous to the City limits. If redevelopment plans were to be submitted to the County for these parcels, the development plans would be processed according to the County’s development review procedures and would be required to sign an Annexation Agreement to annex into the City once contiguity was achieved with the City limits according to the provisions of the Fort Collins-Larimer County IGA. The parks range in size from 3 units to 293 units. These parks were established between the years 1962 and 1989. Approximately 65% of the mobile homes are owner-occupied and 35% are rental. Of the 510 units, 97 units (19%) are in parks with local ownership, 117 units (23%) are in parks whose owners are located in Colorado, and 296 units (58%) are in parks whose owners who are located out of state. Attachment 3 contains additional information collected as part of the mobile home park inventory. Research on Potential Approaches An early element of this project involved researching strategies used by other communities to address the conversion of mobile home parks to other land uses and the relocation of displaced residents. As a general statement, the research found that local regulations regarding the closure of mobile home parks tend to track closely with state regulations where they have been adopted (i.e., October 23, 2012 Page 4 a state “Mobile Home Park Act”). It is rare to find a local community that requires a park owner to cover the relocation costs of displaced mobile home owners/residents if the state does not already require some sort of relocation assistance and/or funding mechanism. Potential approaches for consideration by the City are organized into two categories: 1) techniques to preserve or stabilize mobile home parks, and 2) strategies to assist with relocation when redevelopment is eminent. These potential approaches were discussed at the September informational stakeholder meetings, and are summarized below. Preservation and Stabilization Techniques Mobile Home Park Permitted Use and Standards Some communities list mobile home parks as a permitted use in one or more (generally agricultural or residential) zone districts and then adopt regulations governing the lot layouts, parking layouts, utility systems, and driveway circulation systems that will apply to that land use. Creation of a mobile home park does not require a hearing, just compliance with the standards; if the application meets the standards then it can be approved administratively. This approach is commonly found where state legislation requires that communities allow mobile home parks in one or more of their residential zone districts. Since the use must be allowed (by state law), no permit or rezoning is necessary, and the park standards are designed to address the layout and impacts of the use. Related Background Information In Fort Collins, Mobile Home Parks (MHPs) are only permitted in two zoning districts: 1) the LMN, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, and 2) the E, Employment District. New parks require a public hearing and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Given the closure of the Pioneer MHP, due to commercial redevelopment, when City Plan and the new Land Use Code were adopted in 1997, most MHPs were placed into the LMN District as an attempt to “preserve” them by reducing outside commercial and/or residential redevelopment market pressures. However, the LMN District has proven to not be an absolute preservation protection district as the Dry Creek MHP, located in the LMN zone, closed, causing displacement of the residents, and is redeveloping into a detached single-family unit subdivision. Special/Conditional Use Permits Some communities list mobile home parks as a conditional or special use within some existing (usually agricultural or residential) zone districts, but require that the applicant obtain approval for that use (i.e., it is not available “by right”). Usually, this requires a public hearing before either a Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment, but in some communities, a hearing before the City Council may be required. Generally, communities that follow this approach also adopt mobile home park standards, and compliance with those standards (or approved variances) is required of any park that receives a conditional/special use permit. Mobile Home Park Zoning District Some communities create a zoning district specifically designed for mobile home parks. These districts are usually applied to existing parks in order to help preserve them, but they are also October 23, 2012 Page 5 available for the creation of new mobile home parks. They allow only mobile home residences and uses closely related to the operation of the park, and include the same types of layout, circulation, and utility service standards discussed above. Other commercial and residential uses are generally not allowed, because the site layout, parking layout, and driveway width standards that work for mobile home parks are not readily applied to other land uses. As with all zoning actions, applying these zones to existing parks or to raw land would require review by the Planning Commission and then action by City Council following a public hearing. Related Background Information The City’s 1965-1997 Zoning Ordinance (i.e., pre-Land Use Code) contained two mobile home park districts: 1) the ML, Low Density Mobile Home District (maximum 6 units/acre), and 2) the MM, Medium Density Mobile Home District (maximum 8 units/acre). These zones were not totally restricted to only mobile home park use as they also permitted additional limited residential uses. In 1981, the City adopted a new PUD ordinance known as the Land Development Guidance System, which permitted “Any land use located on a Planned Unit Development plan as defined, processed and approved according to” the LDGS. In theory then, the LDGS did permit other potential uses in the ML and MM zones, as long as they were approved through the “system.” On the other hand, the LDGS also allowed mobile home parks, in theory, to be proposed in zoning districts where such parks were not a listed permitted use. A mobile home park was never proposed through the LDGS in a zone where it was not listed as a permitted use. Of the 1,230 mobile homes inside the City limits, 1,127 (92%) are in parks that were previously in either the ML or MM Zoning District. • Does Council have any feedback on the potential use of a mobile home park district as an option for preservation and stabilization of mobile home parks? Park Resident Ownership - Right of First Refusal or Right to Match Last Offer for Sale of Mobile Home Park Some states and local governments provide mobile home unit owners a “first right of refusal” to buy the mobile home park from the owner at a reasonable price if the owner intends to sell the park. Typically, this right only applies to mobile home owners that are organized into a recognized homeowners association (sometimes required to be registered with the state) that can obtain financing as the purchasing entity. The right does not usually apply to individuals or groups of individuals who are park residents, but who are not parts of an approved entity related to the park. These types of provisions allow mobile home unit owners an opportunity to preserve their housing before the park is listed on the open market. Several variations of these requirements can also be found. In Malibu, CA, for example, the homeowners association is given the right to match the final market offer on the sale of a mobile home park (i.e., a “right of last offer”). In some states, state programs and non-profit organizations exist to help mobile home owners organize and buy their mobile home parks. October 23, 2012 Page 6 Related Background Information Attachment 4 discusses the Thistle Mapleton Park project in Boulder where a land trust preserved a mobile home park. Funding Partners is one of the affordable housing agencies engaged as a key stakeholder in this project. Joe Rowan, Executive Director, is aware of this technique and his agency could potentially be involved in providing some financing to a mobile home park resident HOA to purchase their existing park. The City’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014 also contains an implementation action item to investigate the establishment of a permanent funding source for the Affordable Housing Fund. It is possible that the Fund could be used at some point in the future as a source for financial assistance for the acquisition of mobile home parks by an HOA or a non-profit agency. Federal funds from the CDBG and HOME Programs are another potential source of money. • Does Council have any feedback on the potential use of park resident ownership as an option for preservation and stabilization of mobile home parks? Right of Preferential Housing Some communities require that the redevelopers of mobile home park properties offer current park residents a preferential right to occupy residential units created when the park is redeveloped. Often this approach is paired with a requirement that some of the new residential units be offered at affordable prices, so that the current mobile home unit owners are offered a chance to purchase or rent some of the new affordable units. This option would be made more difficult in Fort Collins by Colorado’s constitutional prohibition on rent control since it would be difficult or impossible to require a redeveloper that is not using public funds to rent units at affordable rates. Any requirement to create affordable units in the new development would most likely apply to for sale units, and many current mobile home park residents might be unable to qualify for mortgage financing even if the units were offered at affordable prices. Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement Some communities offer grants or loans to mobile home park owners to invest in infrastructure maintenance and upgrades as a way to stabilize and support mobile home communities. Grants or loans are sometimes made available to pave (or repave) roadways, upgrade water and/or sewer systems, replace failing septic systems, improve site drainage, or other improvements that would prolong the useful life of the mobile home park and/or reduce threats to public health and safety within the park. Related Background Information Chapter 18 of the City Code contains regulations and standards for mobile home parks and mobile home units in the City limits. These regulations include park maintenance requirements for utilities including electric, water, sewer, and gas, as well as trash removal. City financial assistance could be made available from the federal CDBG and/or HOME Programs, or the City’s Affordable Housing Fund for mobile home park infrastructure maintenance/ replacement projects. The City’s funds could be used to leverage additional private financing to October 23, 2012 Page 7 cover project costs and keep lot rents affordable. Any such applications would need to compete with other proposals through the competitive process. Any funding allocated by the City would contain affordable housing requirements regarding family incomes and length of affordability as contained in the City Code. • Does Council have any feedback on the potential use of infrastructure maintenance/ replacement projects as an option for preservation and stabilization of mobile home parks? Relocation Assistance Strategies Notice of Closure In a number of states (including Colorado), before a mobile park owner can close a park, or redevelop the park for another use, the park owner must mail a written notice to each mobile home park unit owner (or sometimes to the resident or tenant of the unit). Although there are many variations of this requirement, California and Colorado law requires notice to the unit owner, Utah requires notice to the resident, and Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and Maine require notice to the tenant. The purpose is two-fold: (1) to give the recipient of the notice a fair opportunity to participate in any local approval process for the proposed redevelopment; and( 2) to provide adequate time for the unit owner, resident, or tenant to find new housing in case the proposed redevelopment is approved. In some cases, the park owner is prohibited from raising the rent on tenants during the notice period (e.g., UT, CA, OR, WA). The required notice period varies, but 6 month and 12 month notice periods are common. Some examples of these provisions are provided below: State Required Notice Period Colorado, Arizona, Montana 6 month notice Utah 9 month notice Delaware, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington 1 year notice California 6 to 12 month notice (depending if a local permit for change of use is required, additional local requirements apply in some communities) New Hampshire 18 month notice Massachusetts 2 years notice • Does Council have any feedback on the option for a notice to affected residents with an extended time frame from 6 months to 12 months? October 23, 2012 Page 8 Notice of Vacancy Some California jurisdictions have provisions to address the future of mobile home parks that become mostly vacant or unoccupied. For example, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, deem any mobile home park with a vacancy rate of 25% or greater to be a “mobile park closure,” unless the vacancies were caused by a natural disaster. If that level of vacancy occurs, the park owner must file an application for closure with the County and becomes subject to the same County requirements for noticing, relocation assistance, etc., as a regular closure. The County’s regulations also allow a mobile park resident or interested person who has reason to believe that 25% or more of the lots are vacant to notify the County, which may then investigate and make its own determination of whether the owner has made an “unauthorized” park closure in violation of local requirements. The purpose of these regulations is to prevent park owners from closing a park incrementally over time by slowly terminating leases until all the tenants are gone, thus avoiding required relocation payments, as well as giving the county notice of the potential (undocumented) loss of affordable housing units. • Does Council have any feedback on the option for a notice of vacancy to affected residents if a park falls below a certain vacancy rate? Relocation Report In some communities, the mobile home park owner must produce a relocation report that details the impacts that closure or conversion will have on displaced residents, often including the number of residents displaced, the opportunities to find replacement housing within a certain distance from the park (e.g., 25 miles), the costs to relocate each qualifying resident, and other resources from which residents can get financial, legal, and logistical help. The report must be approved by the local jurisdiction, sometimes after a public hearing, and a copy of the report may be provided to each resident in the park. In practice, approval of the relocation report sometimes takes a year or more, which provides park residents additional time to find replacement housing. • Does Council have any feedback regarding the production of a relocation report as a general relocation assistance requirement? Payment of Relocation Costs The mobile home park owner is sometimes required to pay for the relocation costs directly to the homeowner. In most cases, the payments are required to cover, but not exceed, the reasonable amount needed to relocate displaced park residents to a location of equal quality. In some cases the relocation amount is determined on a case-by-case basis (Santa Barbara County, CA and Wilsonville, OR), but in other cases it is set by state stature (AZ, WA, OR), or is a lump sum payment set by the local government. Mobile home renters sometimes receive less relocation assistance than resident owners (Santa Barbara County, CA), because they are probably not responsible for moving the mobile home unit itself. While relocation payments are of significant value to park residents who are dislocated, it is likely that mobile home park owners who are subject to these obligations may treat them as a cost of park operations and raise mobile home site rents in an attempt to recoup them. To avoid this risk, Washington funds the relocation funds through a statewide $100 transfer charge on all sales of mobile homes, located in mobile home parks. Although the Colorado constitution currently prohibits real estate transfer fees, mobile home units October 23, 2012 Page 9 are not currently titled or taxed as real estate, so this option might be available. Related Background Information The City of Fort Collins must already adhere to federal affordable housing relocation laws. If any federal funds are used in a project in the City, the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act must be followed. Federal funds would include, but not be limited to, those from the Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (e.g., CDBG and HOME funds). Relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act includes such things as notification requirements, temporary relocation, clear limits on assistance including moving expenses, temporary housing costs, differences in monthly rental payments, etc. These relocation costs would need to be added to the other costs of the proposed redevelopment project and be paid for by the property- owner and/or developer/builder of the redevelopment project. The City’s Urban Renewal Authority is currently reviewing the federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements to develop policies that would apply to projects that would utilize Tax Increment Financing (TIF). This strategic plan will coordinate with the Urban Renewal Authority and not duplicate its efforts. However, the strategic plan will need to identify additional “triggers” that would invoke relocation assistance payment requirements in addition to federal and Urban Renewal Authority financial assistance. These triggers could include the following: • A request for financial assistance from the City for the use of Affordable Housing Fund dollars. • Annexation of an existing mobile home park slated for redevelopment and required to annex into the City according to the provisions of the Fort Collins-Larimer County IGA. • A rezoning request to foster a redevelopment activity, • Requests for development approval including Overall Development Plans (ODPs) and Project Development Plans (PDPs). • Does Council have any feedback regarding the payment of relocation costs as a general relocation assistance requirement? Does Council have any feedback regarding the additional “triggers” that would invoke relocation assistance payment requirements? Rental Assistance Some states and localities require that the park owner to pay rental assistance to cover any increase in rent that a displaced renter will pay in new location. For example, Santa Barbara County, CA, requires that the park owner pay for a displaced renter’s increase in rent, subject to certain limits, for 12 months, in addition to any other required relocation payments. This is similar to the rental assistance requirement applicable when federal funds are used under the Uniform Relocation Act except the time limit could be as high as 48 months. • Does Council have any feedback regarding the payment of rental assistance as a general relocation assistance requirement? October 23, 2012 Page 10 Other Strategies to Explore While the preservation and relocation mitigation strategies listed above include some of the more common approaches used in other communities, a variety of other ideas emerged during discussions with stakeholders, and those are listed below. The planning team will continue to explore the feasibility of these and any other Council-identified strategies as the planning process continues. • Assistance in becoming a “resident-owned community” – i.e., organizing current park owners so that they can qualify for a mortgage to purchase the mobile home park (land) under a cooperative form of ownership (a national non-profit named Resident Owned Communities USA [“ROC USA”] provides assistance in this process). • Partnerships with or ownership by housing agencies – for example, by having the housing agency purchase and manage the park lands as part of a pool of affordable housing assets. • Partnerships with the City’s Land Bank Program to identify alternative sites for creation of a mobile park where displaced units could be moved, or to trade Land Bank parcels to a mobile home park owner for redevelopment in return for transferring ownership of the park to a resident organization or housing agency. • Private redevelopment/relocation insurance – e.g., identifying insurers that might offer insurance against displacement through park closure in return for an additional premium, which might be borne by the residents or by a government or housing agency if the costs were lower than anticipated relocation costs. Public Involvement The involvement of stakeholder groups, the general public, and City boards and commissions is a very important component of this project. Three key stakeholder groups have been identified and have been involved in the project: (1) mobile home park property-owners; (2) mobile home park residents (unit owners and renters) and interested citizens; and (3) affordable housing and human service agencies (e.g., Fort Collins Housing Authority, Neighbor-to-Neighbor, CARE Housing, The Murphy Center, and Funding Partners). A project website (www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/mobilehomeservices.php) has been established for the dissemination of information, announcement of upcoming public meetings, and collection of public comments. Two key City advisory boards have been involved in the process so far: the Affordable Housing Board, because mobile homes are a low cost, affordable housing component of the community’s housing stock, and the Planning And Zoning Board, because future redevelopment of mobile home parks will likely involve decisions by the Board. Two department of the Larimer County government are involved: the Planning Department and the Environmental Health Department. October 23, 2012 Page 11 Stakeholder Meetings Three stakeholder informational meetings were scheduled as part of the first phase of the public process for the project. The three meetings for the specific stakeholder groups included: (1) manufactured/mobile home park property-owners; (2) manufactured/mobile home owners, park residents, and interested citizens; and (3) affordable housing and social service agencies. Notes from these meetings are in Attachment 5. Boards and Commission Comments Affordable Housing Board The Affordable Housing Board discussed potential mobile home park preservation techniques and relocation assistance payment requirements at its regular monthly meeting held on October 4, 2012. Below is a summary of the Board’s comments: • Mobile Home Park Zone – The Board did not support the rezoning of existing mobile home parks into an exclusive Mobile Home Park District, but recognized the City should do something for preservation of existing parks. Rezonings could have an negative impact on property values. Generally, the Board preferred the City to develop incentives versus regulations to help preserve and sustain existing parks. Some members questioned the long-term viability of some parks and discussed whether the parks should be allowed to redevelop with much higher densities with some new units being required to be affordable to existing park residents. For example, use of an overlay zone in conjunction with the LMN District to allow mobile home park redevelopment projects to achieve a density of 18 units/acre (current affordable housing LMN density bonus is only to 12 units/acre), with a pre-determined minimal percentage being affordable units. • Resident Park Ownership – The Board was mixed on this technique recognizing the significant challenges of organizing existing residents into a cohesive group. While some non-profit agencies may be able to help, many others lack unique experience in managing mobile home parks. • Notice of Closure – The Board supported the idea of extending the current Colorado law requiring a 6-month notice of pending park closure to a 12-month requirement. • Relocation Assistance Payments – The Board struggled with the City’s obligation to help mobile home park residents displaced and forced to relocate because of redevelopment. They recognized that park closures eliminate lower cost, affordable housing and that a park closure typically means a relatively large number of homes need to relocate at the same time. However, they rhetorically asked why the City did not help low-income home owners who lost their homes due to foreclosures over the past several years, in an amount that may be larger than the number of mobile homes in the community. October 23, 2012 Page 12 Planning and Zoning Board The Planning and Zoning Board comments will be included in Council’s Read-Before Packet on Tuesday. Implementation Actions One of the key concerns with implementation actions of the strategic plan will be with their conformance with any applicable state legislation. Colorado’s Mobile Home Act is found in the Colorado Revised Statutes, Sections. 38-12-200.1 to 38-12-221. Section 38-12-201.3 states the following: “The general assembly hereby finds and declares that mobile homes… are important and effective ways to meet Colorado’s affordable housing needs… The general assembly encourages local governments to allow and protect mobile home parks in their jurisdictions and to enact plans to increase the number of mobile home parks in their jurisdictions. The general assembly further encourages local governments to provide incentives to mobile home park owners to attract additional mobile home parks and to increase the viability of current parks.” Generally speaking, the strategic plan addresses the above section of state legislation through the options for mobile home park preservation and stabilization identified so far in the planning process.. It is anticipated the strategic plan will develop specific implementation actions which will be grouped into either: 1. Short-term actions (actions adopted either with the adoption of the strategies, or within one year of adoption), or 2. Longer-term actions (actions requiring more than one year to develop and conduct public reviews leading to eventual adoption). Implementation actions of the project will also be listed in the following three basic categories: 1. Techniques/regulations that the City can adopt unilaterally under the authority of the City Charter and the City Code. 2. Techniques/regulations that would require the City to work with Larimer County to adopt and implement as provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 3. Techniques/regulations that would require new and/or revised Colorado state enabling legislation in order to be implemented. In summary, it appears the City, as a home rule municipality, can legislate in areas where the state has not has expressly forbidden any local ordinances. If the City wished to put additional requirements on mobile home park owners who want to close a park, the state law does not October 23, 2012 Page 13 expressly forbid that, and the City does not need authorization from the state to enact additional requirements. Any additional regulations developed by the strategic plan will be thoroughly reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office before being presented to the City Council for formal adoption. Next Steps The following table lists the basic next steps in the planning process for the development of the strategic plan. November/December 2012 • Refinement of preservation techniques and relocation assistance requirements. • Conduct additional stakeholder and general public meetings. November 2012 – January 2013 • Reviews by the Affordable Housing Board and Planning and Zoning Board • Public hearings in January February 5, 2013 • City Council adoption of the strategic plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Mobile Home Park Closures 2. City Policies 3. Map of Mobile Home Parks Located North of Drake Road 4. Map of Mobile Home Parks Located South of Drake Road 5. Mobile Home Park Inventory 6. Thistle’s Mapleton Park, in Boulder, Colorado 7. September 2012 Stakeholder Informational Meetings 8. PowerPoint presentation . . ATTACHMENT 1 Mobile Home Park Closures The following table provides a list of park closures and the reasons for the closures. Park Name Reason for Closure Pioneer Mobile Home Park Commercial redevelopment Johnson Mobile Home Park Natural flood disaster Dry Creek Mobile Home Park Residential redevelopment Grape Street Commercial redevelopment Bender Mobile Home Park Residential redevelopment Bender Mobile Home Park The most recent park closure was the Bender Mobile Home Park which closed in April 2012. In addition to City staff working with affordable housing and social service agencies to assist Bender residents, the City Council approved the allocation of $50,000 to subsidize the relocation costs of displaced residents. A $2,000 assistance maximum per family was established. Fifteen families utilized a total of $27,150 of the allocated funds, leaving a balance of $22,850. Funds covered expenses such as: First month’s lot rents at a new location Security deposits Moving expenses Home rehabilitations Plumbing supplies ATTACHMENT 2 City Policies The most relevant current City policies related to this project are as follows: From City Plan: Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing Encourage public and private for-profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of single- and multiple-family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing. Policy LIV 8.6 – Mitigate Displacement Impacts Explore ways to mitigate the impact upon residents displaced through the closure of manufactured housing parks or conversion of rental apartments, including single room occupancy units, to condominiums or other uses. NEAR-TERM IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS: 2011 AND 2012 24. Relocation Plan - Develop a proactive plan to address the issue of resident displacement due to redevelopment activities. From the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014: Priority #2: Preserve existing affordable housing units. ATTACHMENT 3 Map of Mobile Home Parks Located North of Drake Road !"`$ ÉZYXW Year ASPEN Built:MHP 1970 SPAULDING Year Built:1989 LN HIGHLAND Year Built:MANOR 1969 NORTH Year COLLEGE Built:1964 MHP MONTCLAIR YearMOTEL Built:0 COLLINS Year Built:AIRE 1972 MHP COLLINS Year Built:AIRE 1972 MHP MOUNTAINVIEW Year Built:1966 MHP HIGHLAND Year Built:MANOR 1969 MHP PARKLANE Year Built:1958 MHP POUDRE Year Built:VALLEY 1968 MHP HIGHLAND Year Built:MANOR 1969 MHP HICKORY Year Built:VILLAGE 1972 MHP NORTH Year COLLEGE Built:1972 MHP NORTHSTAR Year Built:1957 MHP BLUE Year SPRUCE Built:1966 MHP TERRY Year Built:LAKE 1962 MHP NORTH Year COLLEGE Built:1968 MHP STONECREST Year Built:1960 MHP TERRY Year Built:COVE 1970 MHP EQUESTRIAN Year Built:CENTER 0 MHP COTTONWOOD Year Built:1979 MHP Year Built:1960 Year SKYLINE Built:1976 MHP HIGHLAND Year Built:MANOR 1969 MHP NORTHSTAR Year Built:1957 MHP Year SKYLINE Built:1984 MHP ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ³I ³I S COL LEGE AVE S SHIELDS ST W MULBERRY ST W LAU REL ST N SHIELDS ST R E M I N G T O N S T LAPO RTE AVE 9TH ST E LINCOLN AVE E M U L ATTACHMENT 4 Map of Mobile Home Parks Located South of Drake Road !"`$ ôZYXW Year WHITES Built:MHP 1989 PLEASANT Year Built:GROVE 1970 MHP FOOTHILLS Year Built:1966 MHP HORSETOOTH Year MARINE Built:0 RESORT TIMBERIDGE Year Built:SOUTH 1972 MHP HARMONY Year Built:1972 MHP TIMBERIDGE Year Built:NORTH 1972 MHP ³I LANDINGS DR E TRILBY RD E DRAKE RD W HORSETOOTH RD S OVERLAND TRL MAI N S T W TRILBY RD KE CH TE R R D S LEMAY AVE S M A S O N S T W DRAKE RD S TIMBERL INE RD S C OL LE GE AV E W C O U N T Y R O A D 3 8 E W H ATTACHMENT 5 Mobile Home Park Inventory This attachment contains information collected about the mobile home parks in the Fort Collins area. The parks have been divided into three groupings: 1. Parks that are located inside the City limits, 2. Parks that are located in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) but outside the City limits, but whose parcels are contiguous to the City limits, and 3. Parks that are located in the GMA, but outside the City limits and whose parcels are not contiguous to the City limits. The information in the following tables include: Park Name Number of Units (according to Larimer County Assessor’ Files) Size in Acres Density (Units per Acre) Year Built Number of Owner Units Owner Percentage Number of Renter Units Renter Percentage Current Zoning Location in a Targeted Redevelopment Area Former City Zoning District (for parks inside the City limits) Recreational Amenities Ownership Location Park Name (Inside City Limits) Assessor's Number of Units Size in Acres City Limits (CL) or GMA Density (Uniys/Acre) Contiguious to City Limits Year Built Number of Owner Units Owner Percentage Number of Renter Units Renter Percentage Current Zoning Targeted Redevelopment Area Former City Zoning District Dirt (D) Streets Wet Utilities Issues Recreational Amenities Ownership Location Harmont MHP 451 68.78 CL 6.6 1972 352 78% 99 22% LMN Yes MM Pool Chicago, IL Skyline MHP 61 9.95 CL 6.1 1976 58 95% 3 5% LMN ML Pool Clearwater, FL Skyline MHP 102 16.49 CL 6.2 1984 98 96% 4 4% LMN ML Pool Clearwater, FL Northstar MHP 35 3.27 CL 10.7 1957 32 91% 3 9% LMN NCL Golden, CO Northstar MHP 15 1.08 CL 13.9 1957 12 80% 3 20% LMN NCL Golden, CO Cottonwood MHP 13 0.77 CL 16.9 1979 12 92% 1 8% LMN RM D Laporte, CO (Meldrum/Cherry St.) 5 0.38 CL 13.2 1960 0 0% 5 100% NCB Yes C D Fort Collins Hickory Village MHP 205 32.11 CL 6.4 1972 146 71% 59 29% LMN Yes MM Sewer Wheat Ridge, CO North College MHP 96 8.98 CL 10.7 1964 35 36% 61 64% CS Yes MM Fort Collins North College MHP 46 4.40 CL 10.5 1968 8 18% 38 72% CS Yes MM Fort Collins North College MHP 166 19.40 CL 8.6 1972 148 89% 18 11% LMN Yes MM Fort Collins Stonecrest MHP 25 1.91 CL 13.1 1960 0 0% 25 100% CS Yes HB D Loveland, CO Montclair Motel 10 1.25 CL 8.0 0 0 0% 10 100% CS Yes HB D Fort Collins 1230 900 73% 330 27% ATTACHMENT 5 1 Park Name (Contiguous to City Limits) Assessor's Number of Units Size in Acres City Limits (CL) or GMA Density (Uniys/Acre) Contiguious to City Limits Year Built Number of Owner Units Owner Percentage Number of Renter Units Renter Percentage Current Zoning Targeted Redevelopment Area Former City Zoning District Dirt (D) Streets Wet Utilities Issues Recreational Amenities Ownership Location Pleasant Grove MHP 106 12.97 GMA 8.2 Yes 1970 76 72% 30 28% M1 Sewer Chicago, IL Timberridge North MHP 281 40.43 GMA 7.0 Yes 1972 228 81% 53 19% M1 Sewer Pool Southfield, MI Collins Aire North MHP 159 23.09 GMA 6.9 Yes 1972 111 70% 48 30% O Pool Paauilo, HI Collins Aire South MHP 121 28.75 GMA 4.2 Yes 1972 104 86% 17 14% O Pool Paauilo, HI (Spaulding Lane) 7 1.52 GMA 4.6 Yes 0 7 100% 0 0% M1 Fort Collins Poudre Valley MHP 332 39.22 GMA 8.5 Yes 1968 286 86% 46 14% M1 Storm Evergreen, CO Highland Manor MHP 5 0.50 GMA 10.0 Yes 1969 5 100% 0 0% M1 Fort Collins Highland Manor MHP 30 3.18 GMA 9.4 Yes 1969 30 100% 0 0% M1 Fort Collins 1041 847 81% 194 19% 2 Park Name (Not Contiguous) Assessor's Number of Units Size in Acres City Limits (CL) or GMA Density (Uniys/Acre) Contiguious to City Limits Year Built Number of Owner Units Owner Percentage Number of Renter Units Renter Percentage Current Zoning Targeted Redevelopment Area Former City Zoning District Dirt (D) Streets Wet Utilities Issues Recreational Amenities Ownership Location Timberridge South MHP 293 40.62 GMA 7.2 No 1972 214 73% 79 27% M1 Sewer Pool Southfield, MI White's MHP 5 1.12 GMA 4.5 No 1989 0 0% 5 100% R D Fort Collins Aspen MHP 25 1.75 GMA 14.3 No 1970 14 56% 11 44% M1 Sewer Greenwood Village, CO Parklane MHP 62 7.31 GMA 8.5 No 1958 44 71% 18 29% C Yes Sewer Boulder, CO Mountainview MHP 30 4.34 GMA 6.9 No 1966 15 50% 15 50% R-2 Watkins, CO Equestrian Center MHP 3 9.52 GMA 0.3 No 0 1 33% 2 67% O D Dublin, CA Terry Lake MHP 27 4.30 GMA 6.3 No 1962 2 7% 25 93% O D Septic Fort Collins Blue Spruce MHP 24 5.92 GMA 4.1 No 1966 24 99% 0 1% FA Fort Collins Highland Manor MHP 17 3.34 GMA 5.1 No 1969 17 99% 0 1% M1 Fort Collins Terry Cove MHP 24 4.01 GMA 6.0 No 1970 3 12% 21 88% R D Fort Collins 510 333 65% 177 35% 3 ATTACHMENT 6 Thistle’s Mapleton Park, in Boulder, Colorado Mapleton Park in Boulder, Colorado, is the leading example of master leasing a park to create a permanently affordable manufacturing housing park. Thistle Community Land Trust formed a limited liability company to purchase the park and then leased the land through a 99-year master lease to Mapleton Home Association, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public benefit corporation. Then, the Association leased spaces to residents. The LLC and the Association also created a detailed management plan that set out the principles for the park’s operation, the control and governance of the Association and the division of their rights and responsibilities. A third party manager handles the space leases, including landlord/tenant matters. The LLC was able to purchase the property with below market, fixed rate financing made available through bank qualified tax exempt bonds—the first time such financing has been used to purchase and renovate a manufactured housing park. Through the efforts of the residents and the community land trust, 135 home sites were preserved. 1 ATTACHMENT 7 September 2012 Stakeholder Informational Meetings Manufactured/mobile home park property-owners: Tuesday, September 25, 4:00 – 5:30 pm Harmony Library – 4616 South Shields Street Meeting Notes: Lots of differences between each mobile home community City has handled each mobile home park closure differently. The purpose of this project is to City clarify role/policies for future situations. Potential Strategies to Prevent Redevelopment: o Right of First Refusal o Right of Last Refusal/Offer o Right of Preferential Housing o Incentives o Zoning Changes In other communities, did vendor fees increase to match the maximum relocation assistance amount? o A pre-determined amount usually means vendors will charge that amount o A non-fixed amount (actual cost) of relocation assistance may be better approach to avoid this problem o Consulting team will explore typical actual costs for moving within Fort Collins What happens to abandoned homes when a park closes? o The owner of park is usually responsible for removal o This is a challenging issue for park owners, especially for re-1976 (HUD) homes that are in poor condition If a federally-funded redevelopment project occurs, a relocation process is already determined (Uniform Relocation Act, which occurs at the cost of the redevelopment project) Key factors in whether units are moved or abandoned are market vacancy rates and the age/value of units There may not be places to move homes in the event of a closure in Fort Collins Is the City in favor of opening new parks? o Mobile home parks are permitted uses in the LMN zone o Although they are permitted uses, many higher density housing projects (e.g., student housing, mobile home parks, etc.) can encounter opposition from surrounding neighborhoods/property-owners The last mobile home park approved in Fort Collins was Dry Creek, although this project had some financial challenges and has since closed The Housing Authority does have some modular housing units on permanent foundations – this trend will likely increase in the future 2 Have there been any reconfigurations of mobile home parks to enlarge lots/reduce density? o Not to the team’s knowledge, but this is permissible by amending the site plan (usually the mobile home park is platted as one large lot) o This is typically not usually a zoning issue as long as setbacks and minimum densities are satisfied Would the relocation mitigation policies apply to re-configuration/reducing the number of lots in mobile home parks? o Probably not since it is unlikely that a park owner would eliminate lots if they were occupied (i.e., consolidation of lots would generally occur only if vacant lots were available) How would the displacement strategies differ for mobile home owners vs. renters? o Residents who rent homes from the mobile home park owners or other landlords generally have month to month (or longer) leases, and in these instances standard landlord/tenant agreements apply (not displacement strategies) o For mobile home owners who just lease the land, displacement mitigation assistance may apply if the City decides to adopt such policies How would the relocation strategies apply to properties outside of city limits? o If a property is located within the County but adjacent to (Contiguous with) the City limits, any redevelopment project would spur the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and the County, and the property would be annexed into the City and the development project would be subject to City requirements (including displacement mitigation). o If a property is located in the County and not adjacent to the City, redevelopment would be handled by the County, and the City’s requirements would not apply, other than the City’s requirement that the property sign an agreement to annex to the City when eligible. If park owners are required to pay for relocation mitigation, they could get double the burden by having to pay for relocation and then also by having to pay the costs of removing abandoned homes Key issues to consider when developing strategies are the quality of the homes and occupants. The free market determines which homes are worth moving and which ones are not worth moving (abandoned). The abandoned homes are a big issue, and the strategy should explore whether or not some sort of relocation assistance fund could also apply to park owners who are left with removing abandoned homes. Need to explore whether or not there are any State/City or other regulations about moving pre-HUD homes (some perceptions that regulations exist). Manufactured/mobile home owners and park residents: Tuesday September 25, 7:00 pm – 8:30 pm Northside Aztlan Community Center - 112 Willow Street Meeting Notes The planning process seems to be short; need to determine if there is enough time allotted for thorough feedback from all stakeholders 3 Need to advertise meetings as open to the public; mobile home park newsletters may be a good tool to notify folks of future meetings Will this plan address Mobile Home Parks in County? o Mobile home parks in the City (approximately 1200 units) – yes, this plan will address o Mobile home parkss in the County but contiguous/adjacent to City limits (approximately 1100 units) – yes, the plan will address o Mobile homes in the County and not contiguous/adjacent to City County (approximately 700 units) – no, these are subject to the County’s process and requirements, but the County will be involved throughout the effort Cheryl and Catholic Charities deserve recognition for Bender assistance efforts City assistance helped with the Bender displacement but more assistance needed (could Section 8 vouchers be explored in the future?) Low-income housing needed throughout the City Residents are the ones who lose out This plan may also involve exploring changes in state laws and regulations to protect residents from displacement What have other communities done to prevent redevelopment of mobile home parks? Right of First Refusal – time period given depends on location o (Right of First Refusal) in Resident-Owned Communities (ROC USA) o Housing trust fund support – tap into local lenders Right of Last Offer Right of Preferential Housing (1st in line for new units) o Form of inclusionary zoning o Can be tied to existing rents or area median income Incentives Zoning – strengthen process/make it harder to close MH parks o Some variation of a mobile home park zone o Could this be a taking? No, as long as reasonable economic use of the property o Why did the City drop MH park zones in 1997? o Thought was that LMN would help preserve parks Potential Assistance Tools when Displacement will Happen Notification of park closure o 6 months in CO o Longer in other states (12 month – 2 year) Financial Assistance o Relocation Assistance Fund (WA) – state operates, funded by transfer of title fees paid by residents o Property owner/landlord pays (OR) Landlord support (relocation coordinator) Vacancy rate triggers notice Purchases/Land trusts Other Comments and Questions 4 Relocation of pre-1976 homes is very challenging; Hard to find new parks that will accept them o Solution needs to include voluntary abandonment o Need state action to override covenants How will various options be evaluated? o State/local action/level of support o Best practices/lessons learned o City Council to be the final decision maker Title changes – personal property vs. real property (stronger consumer protections for real property) Mortgage settlement fund – explore potential to use some of this money for relocation assistance Are mobile homes really affordable? o Preserving existing communities cheaper than building new o Residents are captive in parks Land Trust model of non-profit developer model could work to help with preservation o Lowry a good CO model for affordable housing Does the City have funding for mobile home community preservation? Look at overall affordable housing budget in City What role does/could CHAFA play? Credit union lending could play a larger role Affordable housing and social service agencies: Wednesday, September 26, 9:00 – 10:30 am Conference Room B, 281 North College Avenue Meeting Notes Current title of project is complicated but it needs to address preservation and displacement mitigation Explore partnerships/coordination with CARE housing and others on residents or agencies owning mobile home parks Would it be possible to develop the City’s land bank property as a mobile home park or swap this property for another property? State and federal funding is very limited to assist in relocation efforts (rough estimate of total State funds for affordable housing +/- 2 million, Federal funds +/- 10 million) Need models/case studies about the economics of resident owned communities or other “benign” landowner situations Some of the mobile home communitieLimited ability to move pre-1976 homes Lots of very old parks o Failed infrastructure one cause of closures 5 o Infrastructure improvements a possible strategy ( partnerships) Dry Creek was the last mobile home park developed Explore the potential development or trading of the City’s Land Bank properties to save mobile home parks from redevelopment Some communities have tried to secure long-term commitments to retain mobile home parks but without much success Need to clarify City vs. County vs. State vs. URA responsibilities when redevelopment/displacement occur and compare these with the federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements Case studies to research o Mapleton mobile home park (Boulder, CO Thistle Community Housing) o Rocky Mountain Community Land Trust (CO Springs) Aging in place a key issue in mobile home parks as well as throughout the community. Could mobile homes be part of the solution? Resident Owned Communities a successful approach in some areas o Homeowners need financial partners to make this successful (partner with local banks?) o Explore the role of the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) in establishing resident owned communities Revolving Loan Fund in Northern CO can be used on mobile homes but there is a $5,000 maximum allowed on repairs for mobile homes The City doesn’t enforce private covenants, such as those enacted by mobile home parks and other subdivisions 1 1 Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies October 23, 2102 City Council Work Session 2 City Council 2012 Work Plan Develop an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan.” The strategic plan will investigate: • Options for mobile home park preservation and stabilization • Options for displacement relocation assistance requirements ATTACHMENT 8 2 3 Relevant City Policies City policies from City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014: • Recognize manufactured housing/mobile homes as an important component of the city’s housing stock. • Encourage the preservation of affordable housing units. • Mitigate the relocation displacement impacts upon residents due to redevelopment activities. 4 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS • Council feedback on preservation and stabilization options for mobile home parks: – Mobile Home Park Zoning District – Park Resident Ownership – Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement • Council feedback on the following options for notice to affected residents: – Notice of Closure – Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closures”) 3 5 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS • Council feedback on the following general relocation assistance requirement options: – Relocation Report – Payment of Relocation Costs – Rental Assistance • Any additional Council questions or comments at this time? 6 Mobile Home Park Inventory • 1,230 manufactured housing/mobile home units located in 9 parks inside the City limits. • 1,041 manufactured housing/mobile home units located in 6 parks on parcels that are contiguous to the City limits • 510 manufactured housing/mobile homes units located in 10 parks in the GMA and not contiguous to the City limits 4 7 Preservation and Stabilization Techniques • Mobile Home Park Zoning District – Some communities create a zoning district specifically designed for mobile home parks in order to help preserve them. – In the past the City had 2 MHP Zones: • ML, Low Density Mobile Home District • MM, Medium Density Mobile Home District 8 Preservation and Stabilization Techniques • Park Resident Ownership – Mobile home unit owners buy the mobile home park from the owner at a reasonable price if the owner intends to sell the park. • Requires establishment of a Home Owners Association (HOA), or • The involvement of a non-profit affordable housing organization, or • Establishment of a land trust. 5 9 Preservation and Stabilization Techniques • Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement – Some communities offer grants or loans to mobile home park owners to invest in infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. • City financial assistance (e.g., CDBG/HOME Programs, Affordable Housing Fund) could provide funds for park infrastructure projects. – Applications would compete with other proposals through the competitive process 10 Relocation Assistance Strategies Notice of Closure • Before a mobile park owner can close a park, or redevelop the park for another use, the owner must mail a written notice to each mobile home park unit owner and/or tenant. • Colorado law requires a 6-month notice. • Should the City of Fort Collins consider extending the notice requirement (e.g., 12 months)? 6 11 Relocation Assistance Strategies Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closure”) • A mobile home park with a vacancy rate of 25% or greater is considered to be a “mobile park closure.” • If that level of vacancy occurs, the park owner becomes subject to the requirements for noticing, relocation assistance, etc., as a regular closure. 12 Relocation Assistance Strategies Relocation Report • A park owner is required to detail the impacts a closure will have on displaced residents: – the number of residents displaced, – the opportunities to find replacement housing within a certain distance (e.g., 25 miles), – costs to relocate qualifying residents and – resources for residents (financial, legal, and logistical). 7 13 Relocation Assistance Strategies Payment of Relocation Costs • A mobile home park owner is required to pay for the relocation costs directly to the homeowner to cover the reasonable amount needed to relocate displaced park residents to a location of equal quality. 14 Payment of Relocation Costs Federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA) • The City must already adhere to federal URA requirements if any federal funds are used in a redevelopment project in the City. • URA relocation assistance includes notification, temporary relocation, moving expenses, temporary housing costs, differences in monthly rental payments, etc. 8 15 Payment of Relocation Costs City’s Urban Renewal Authority • The Urban Renewal Authority is currently reviewing the federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements to develop policies that would apply to projects that would utilize, for example, Tax Increment Financing (TIF). • The displacement mitigation strategic plan will coordinate with the Urban Renewal Authority and not duplicate its efforts. 16 Payment of Relocation Costs • This strategic plan identify additional “triggers” that would invoke relocation assistance payment requirements. • These triggers could include the following: – Financial assistance from the City’s AHF – Annexation of a park for redevelopment – A rezoning request for redevelopment – Development approvals (e.g., Overall Development Plans (ODPs) and, Project Development Plans (PDPs). 9 17 Public Involvement • Three key stakeholder groups have been identified and have been involved in the project: – mobile home park property-owners – mobile home park residents (unit owners and renters) and interested citizens – affordable housing and human service agencies • Three stakeholder informational meetings were conducted in September 18 Public Involvement • City boards/commissions – Affordable Housing Board – Planning and Zoning Board • Larimer County government – Planning Department – Environmental Health Department • Project web page has been established 10 19 Implementation Actions The strategic plan will develop implementation actions which will be grouped into either: • Short-term actions, or • Longer-term actions Implementation actions will also be listed in three basic categories: • Actions the City can adopt unilaterally • Actions that require coordination with Larimer County • Actions that require new state enabling legislation 20 Next Steps November/December 2012 Refinement of preservation techniques and relocation assistance requirements. Conduct additional stakeholder and general public meetings. November 2012 – January 2013 Reviews by the Affordable Housing Board and Planning and Zoning Board Public hearings in January February 5, 2013 City Council adoption of the strategic plan. 11 21 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS • Council feedback on the following preservation and stabilization options for mobile home parks: – Mobile Home Park Zoning District – Park Resident Ownership – Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement • Council feedback on the following options for notice to affected residents: – Notice of Closure – Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closures”) 22 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS • Council feedback on the following general relocation assistance requirement options: – Relocation Report – Payment of Relocation Costs – Rental Assistance • Any additional Council questions or comments at this time? A R M O N Y R D S US HIGHWAY 287 S TAFT HILL RD S CO UNT Y ROA D 13 CARPENTER RD Z I E G L E R R D S COUNTY ROAD 11 JOHN F KENNEDY PKWY ROAD S COUNTY 7 S SHI EL DS ST E HORSETOOTH RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 E ROAD COUNTY 3 8 E ROAD COUNTY 36 STRAUSS CABIN RD E HARMONY RD E C O U N T Y R O A D 3 0 STATE HIGHWAY 392 S COUNTY ROAD 9 S COU NTY R OAD 1 9 INTERSTA TE 25 Mobile Home City of Parks Fort (South Collins of Drake Rd) CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: October 12, 2012 Mobile Home Parks Streets Water Features GMA City Limits 0 0.5 1Miles © ATTACHMENT 4 B E R R Y S T G R E G O R Y R D S MASON ST W VINE DR E DRAKE RD S HOWES ST N MASON ST LINCOLN AVE COUNTRY CLUB RD S OV ER LA ND TR L N OV ER LA ND TR L S TAFT HILL RD TURNBERRY RD N HOWES ST R I V E R S I D E A V E N LEMAY AV E W DRAKE RD ROAD COUNTY 54 G W PROS PECT R D RD ZIEGLER S LEMAY A VE S T I M B E R L I N E R D W EL IZ AB ET H ST E VIN E DR W D O U GL A S R D S SUMMIT VIEW DR E PROSPECT RD S COUNT Y ROAD 5 N T A F T H I L L R D T E R R Y L A K E R D N TIMBERLINE RD E COUNTY ROAD 48 N CO UNT Y ROA D 19 N CO UNTY ROAD 17 E DOUGLAS RD N COUN TY ROA D 5 I N T E R S T A T E 2 5 MOU NTAIN VISTA DR RICHAR DS LAK E RD E COUNTY ROAD 50 E CO UNT Y ROAD 52 E C OUN TY R OAD 54 GIDDINGS RD N CO UNTY ROAD 9 N U S H I G H W A Y 2 8 7 Mobile Home City of Parks Fort (North Collins of Drake Rd) CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: October 12, 2012 Mobile Home Parks Streets Water Features GMA City Limits 0 0.5 1Miles ©